A commentary on rabbinic texts and toxicality

July 27, 2005

Biodiversity via Talmudic medicine

In utilitarian arguments for biodiversity, proponents praise the value of plant and animal life as potential medicines. Religious ethics typically takes a dim view of such utilitarian, consequentialist arguments. Yet, while pursuing a teleological faith that God does nothing by accident, the Talmud offers consequentialist evidence. To wit: animals are good as meds. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: “Everything that he holy One, blessed be he, created in his world, he did not create a single thing for naught.” (Shab 77b) The rabbis then give four examples:

Note: Let's not be sanguine about it: if sought as an end in itself, biodiversity could require real economic sacrifices (Volokh). So the utilitarian, cost-benefit arguments are inadequate. Presumably, a Jewish position would need to assert stewardship for the intrinsic value of creation, to which the examples above also testify. See COEJL on biodiversity, "Talmud–style" .

Comments

The connection between environmentalism and the prohibition of bal tashchit is quite interesting.

1. Shulchan Arukh has only a very slight discussion of the latter. (I believe relating to the size of crumbs that can be thrown out.)

2. From the talmudic discussion, it seemed to have an essentially ascetic component: Don't use e.g. wheat when barley would suffice. Of course, the less expensive item might be less expensive because it is more widely available...but I think the aescetic explanation feels more authentic. As a student pointed out to me "I shouldn't get an A when a B suffices."

3. You should also look at Noda Bi"Yehuda on hunting (Chelek Yorah De'ah, I forget where): not killing the animals when they can serve a human use would be bal tashchit (I am exxagerating his view, so read it and trash me on the nuance). He comes out against hunting on other grounds.